Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Paul N E T A L I S I L E Malunda

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
of teachers differently; that is, while some head teachers preferred short frequent visits to classrooms to whole lesson observations because these kept them abreast with what was happening in the classrooms, others did not. In fact, one head teacher during the interview remarked; “... short visits to classroom update me on what is exactly happening in the classrooms and helps me to ensure that the teaching and learning process goes on as expected...”. Several head teachers interviewed acknowledged that it was important to discuss with the individual teachers immediately their lessons were observed. Indeed, some head teachers also revealed that they used the “teacher monitoring tool” which is a form given to students to indicate teacher attendance, punctuality, and time on task to conveniently monitor what was going on in the classroom. These forms, according to the head teachers, were given to students on Monday morning and collected on Friday evening for analysis. When asked about the type of action that is taken after the monitoring forms were analysed, one head teacher said, “’,.the names of the teachers who miss lessons are read during the assembly at the beginning of every week. I have found this to work well because most teachers do not want to have their names read at assembly.” This finding implied that certain head teachers were reluctant to provide teachers with relevant feedback when they are supervised in a supportive and collegial approach.

Table 3 of teachers differently; that is, while some head teachers preferred short frequent visits to classrooms to whole lesson observations because these kept them abreast with what was happening in the classrooms, others did not. In fact, one head teacher during the interview remarked; “... short visits to classroom update me on what is exactly happening in the classrooms and helps me to ensure that the teaching and learning process goes on as expected...”. Several head teachers interviewed acknowledged that it was important to discuss with the individual teachers immediately their lessons were observed. Indeed, some head teachers also revealed that they used the “teacher monitoring tool” which is a form given to students to indicate teacher attendance, punctuality, and time on task to conveniently monitor what was going on in the classroom. These forms, according to the head teachers, were given to students on Monday morning and collected on Friday evening for analysis. When asked about the type of action that is taken after the monitoring forms were analysed, one head teacher said, “’,.the names of the teachers who miss lessons are read during the assembly at the beginning of every week. I have found this to work well because most teachers do not want to have their names read at assembly.” This finding implied that certain head teachers were reluctant to provide teachers with relevant feedback when they are supervised in a supportive and collegial approach.

Related Figures (4)

Results in Table 1 show that more male teachers (69.0%) participated in the study as compared to thet female counterparts (31.0%). This suggests a gender disparity in employment of teachers in public secondary schools with more male teachers being employed compared to females. The results also show that the majority o the teachers (77.7%) in the sample had the requisite qualification (at least a Bachelor’s degree) to teach a secondary school level. This shows that the teachers involved were knowledgeable in the context of the study. It relation to numbers of years spent in the schools, findings in Table 1 show that majority of the sampled teacher: (81.3 %) had taught for more than three years in their respective schools. This indicated that the respondents hac long standing cognate experience in serving as teachers. Results in the same table further reveal that of the teacher: who participate in the study, 36% of them were science teachers while 64% were arts teachers. This suggests tha there are fewer science teachers working in the public secondary schools in Uganda as compared to their art: counterparts. An overview of the demographic characteristics of the study respondents is presented in Table | below. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Results in Table 1 show that more male teachers (69.0%) participated in the study as compared to thet female counterparts (31.0%). This suggests a gender disparity in employment of teachers in public secondary schools with more male teachers being employed compared to females. The results also show that the majority o the teachers (77.7%) in the sample had the requisite qualification (at least a Bachelor’s degree) to teach a secondary school level. This shows that the teachers involved were knowledgeable in the context of the study. It relation to numbers of years spent in the schools, findings in Table 1 show that majority of the sampled teacher: (81.3 %) had taught for more than three years in their respective schools. This indicated that the respondents hac long standing cognate experience in serving as teachers. Results in the same table further reveal that of the teacher: who participate in the study, 36% of them were science teachers while 64% were arts teachers. This suggests tha there are fewer science teachers working in the public secondary schools in Uganda as compared to their art: counterparts. An overview of the demographic characteristics of the study respondents is presented in Table | below. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Analysis of interview data revealed that head teachers of non-USE schools did not see the necessity of conducting classroom observations unless when students or parents complained about the quality of teaching of a particular teacher. When one head teacher of a non-USE school in Buganda region was asked how often he carried out classroom observation, she said:
Analysis of interview data revealed that head teachers of non-USE schools did not see the necessity of conducting classroom observations unless when students or parents complained about the quality of teaching of a particular teacher. When one head teacher of a non-USE school in Buganda region was asked how often he carried out classroom observation, she said:
SOUVENIR OM Efe ANU OU FERS eR Ra. i A Ae Results in Table 5 show that all the 934 observations were used in the analysis. The likelihood ratio chi- Se RE ate lg AE Re square of 1403.92 with a p-value of 0.000 (p < 0.05) indicates that the model as a whole was statistically significant compared to the null model with no predictors. Pseudo R? = 0.722 means that the explanatory variables explained of school and the number of years a teacher taught in the sc 0.05) in explaining variations in of educa ion, and category of sul (p > 0.05) of teachers. Further findings also indicated that c pedagogical practices (odd ratio = 4.1) followed by portfo results in taught in predictors he taught in results also s resulted into findings pedagogical were thus rej Table 5 also indicated that a shift from one categ a school, resulted into a 0.32 unit decrease in t a school. This could be attributed to the teachers assroom observation has the greatest influence ory to a higher category of the duration a teac he ordered log odds. This meant that with ot becoming complacent to the work situation. howed that a unit increase in the category of schools (shift from USE coded | to non-USE coded a 0.55 unit increase in the effectiveness of pedagogical practices. This meant that pedagogi practices were better in non-USE schools as compared to their counterparts in USE schools. Based on the in Table 5, the null hypotheses: Hoi: Classroom observation has no significant effect on teac pedagogical practices of teachers. practices; and Hoz: Portfolio supervision has no significant effect on teacher pedagogical practices ected. The results thus imply that instructional supervision significantly explains variations in the in the model explained 72.2% variability in teacher pedagogical practices and 27.8% variability is by other unknown factors. In the model, classroom observations, portfolio supervision, the category hool were found to be statistically significant (p < pedagogical practices. Meanwhile, sub-region, status of the school, gender, level bject taught did not significantly explain variations in the pedagogical practices on io supervision (odd ratio = 2.3). In addition, the ner ner d constant, pedagogical practices became poorer with the increasing number of years a teacher had The 2) cal ner I IE OE Further analysis was conducted using ordered logistic regression to establish the variability in the teacher pedagogical practices accounted for by factors of instructional supervision and demographic characteristics. The analysis helped to test the following null hypotheses: Ho;: Classroom observation has no significant effect on teacher pedagogical practices; and Hoz: Portfolio supervision has no significant effect on teacher pedagogical practices. The results of the analysis are given in Table 5 below. Table 5. Ordered logistic regression results on factors influencing pedagogical practices
SOUVENIR OM Efe ANU OU FERS eR Ra. i A Ae Results in Table 5 show that all the 934 observations were used in the analysis. The likelihood ratio chi- Se RE ate lg AE Re square of 1403.92 with a p-value of 0.000 (p < 0.05) indicates that the model as a whole was statistically significant compared to the null model with no predictors. Pseudo R? = 0.722 means that the explanatory variables explained of school and the number of years a teacher taught in the sc 0.05) in explaining variations in of educa ion, and category of sul (p > 0.05) of teachers. Further findings also indicated that c pedagogical practices (odd ratio = 4.1) followed by portfo results in taught in predictors he taught in results also s resulted into findings pedagogical were thus rej Table 5 also indicated that a shift from one categ a school, resulted into a 0.32 unit decrease in t a school. This could be attributed to the teachers assroom observation has the greatest influence ory to a higher category of the duration a teac he ordered log odds. This meant that with ot becoming complacent to the work situation. howed that a unit increase in the category of schools (shift from USE coded | to non-USE coded a 0.55 unit increase in the effectiveness of pedagogical practices. This meant that pedagogi practices were better in non-USE schools as compared to their counterparts in USE schools. Based on the in Table 5, the null hypotheses: Hoi: Classroom observation has no significant effect on teac pedagogical practices of teachers. practices; and Hoz: Portfolio supervision has no significant effect on teacher pedagogical practices ected. The results thus imply that instructional supervision significantly explains variations in the in the model explained 72.2% variability in teacher pedagogical practices and 27.8% variability is by other unknown factors. In the model, classroom observations, portfolio supervision, the category hool were found to be statistically significant (p < pedagogical practices. Meanwhile, sub-region, status of the school, gender, level bject taught did not significantly explain variations in the pedagogical practices on io supervision (odd ratio = 2.3). In addition, the ner ner d constant, pedagogical practices became poorer with the increasing number of years a teacher had The 2) cal ner I IE OE Further analysis was conducted using ordered logistic regression to establish the variability in the teacher pedagogical practices accounted for by factors of instructional supervision and demographic characteristics. The analysis helped to test the following null hypotheses: Ho;: Classroom observation has no significant effect on teacher pedagogical practices; and Hoz: Portfolio supervision has no significant effect on teacher pedagogical practices. The results of the analysis are given in Table 5 below. Table 5. Ordered logistic regression results on factors influencing pedagogical practices
Related topics:
PsychologyReflective practice in educationChristian MinistryHead Teachers
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved